Yuvraj, main accused in Gokulraj murder case, sentenced to life-time imprisonment; other accused too get multiple life terms

The sentences for the other accused in the Gokulraj case, pronounced by Judge T. Sampathkumar, included three life terms and also life-time conviction for Arun, who was the driver of Yuvaraj, and Kumar, the accused no.3.

V. Gokulraj.

The Special Court for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe cases in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, on March 8 sentenced Yuvaraj, a self-styled leader of a caste Hindu outfit, to life-time imprisonment by slapping three life sentences for the murder of a 21-year-old Dalit youth, V. Gokulraj, for his ‘friendship’ with a girl, belonging to the intermediate Kongu Vellalar Gounder caste, in Namakkal district of Tamil Nadu in 2015. The judgment in the case was delivered on March 5.

The sentences were awarded under the provisions of both the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendments Act. As a result, the accused would not be able to get the benefit of remission on the claim of ‘good conduct’ unlike the accused in the Melavalavu and Chennagarampatti cases who were given remission of their sentences last year by the then All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam government because the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not invoked in them. These cases involved two incidents of murder of the Melavalavu village president and around seven more Dalits in these villages in Madurai districts by caste Hindus in the late 1990s.

The sentences for the other accused in the Gokulraj case, pronounced by Judge T. Sampathkumar, included three life terms and also life-time conviction for Arun, who was the driver of Yuvaraj, and Kumar, the accused no.3. Those who were given double life sentences included Sathishkumar, Raghu alias Sridhar, Ranjith, Selvaraj and Chandrasekaran. The other two, Prabhu and Giridhar, got a life term besides five-year sentences each. The judge also imposed fines on them.

While seventeen were charge-sheeted, five were acquitted. Of the other two, one died during the trial while the other person was arrested later and was facing trial separately at the Namakkal Sessions under the split case category. The accused were booked under sections 120(b), 364 read with 34, 109, 384, 465, 468, 471 r/w 468, 302, 201, 212 and 216 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act.

The High Court-appointed Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) B.B Mohan called it a ‘historic judgement’. Speaking to Frontline , Mohan said the murder was a clear case of honour killing. "It was a brutal premeditated crime. It did not happen emotionally or on the spur of the moment. They beheaded him before throwing the headless body near the rail track. By this heinous crime, the gang served a warning to those youngsters who wished to marry outside their castes," he said. V. Chitra, mother of the deceased boy, said that she would have been happier had the accused were given the death sentence.

Mohan said that with Swathi, the girl with whom the deceased was found at the Sri Arthanareeshwarar Temple at Tiruchengode on June 23, 2005, just before his abduction and subsequent murder, had turned hostile. "In fact the girl went to Tiruchengode Police Station along with Chitra on the same day to file a complaint. She turned hostile in the face of casteist fury. Hence, we had to rely on the video footage of the temple on that day and construct the case against the accused," he said.

The SPP said that Yuvaraj, the founder of the Maveeran Theeran Chinnamalai Gounder Ilaignar Peravai, which was formed to "maintain their caste purity", organised many meetings for the purpose among its caste youths. In fact, Gokulraj was murdered merely for having a friendship with the girl from the Kongu Velalar Gounder caste. "Unfortunately, the trial was not conducted with proper framing of charges in the Namakkal Principal Sessions Court. All main witnesses turned hostile,’ he further said.

When Chitra sought Mohan’s appointment as Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) under 4(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995, the then Namakkal District Collector had rejected it. Instead, a retired SPP was appointed. As the proceedings at the Namakkal court were causing concern, Chitra petitioned the Madras High Court again alleging that the fundamental principles of jurisprudence were not adhered to in the Namakkal court and sought the appointment of Mohan as SPP.

The High Court obliged. "I was appointed as SPP after 41 witnesses had already been examined," he said. But the woes did not end. Despite the High Court order, the then AIADMK government did not pass the proceedings of his appointment. Besides, Mohan was not given any cooperation as SPP. "Hence Chitra had to move the High Court once again to shift the case elsewhere, since she found the atmosphere in Namakkal vitiated and not conducive to the conduct of further hearings in the case,’ Mohan said.

"The High Court transferred the case to the Madurai Special Court of SC/ST in May 2019. But it got delayed as the Special Court did not have a regular appointment of judges. After a long struggle, Judge Sampathkumar was posted and the case ended in conviction today. Totally 106 witnesses were examined, 500 exhibits and 74 material objects were marked in this case," Mohan pointed out.

But, unfortunately, the appointment of the SPP was yet to be recognised by the State. He was not given the emoluments that went with his appointment as SPP for appearing in the case, which the Law Department of the Home Ministry of the Tamil Nadu government was yet to sanction. "But I am satisfied that I could get justice to the family of the victim," he said. Senior lawyers Sankar Subbu and P. Rathnam helped the victim’s family in legal issues.